Interference No. 103,950
As Nardella has not established that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the prior
art (Nardella’s claims 35 or 37) so as to include the features
recited in Tsuruta’s claim 4 through 16, Nardella preliminary
motion is denied.
Tsuruta’s Preliminary Motion No. 4
Tsuruta has filed a preliminary motion under 37 CFR §§
1.635 and 1.645(b) to seek consideration of belatedly filed
preliminary Motion Nos. 5 and 6. Tsuruta argues that the
filing of a disclaimer by Nardella in U.S. Patent No.
5,665,085 created new issues and necessitated the filing of
Tsuruta’s preliminary Motion Nos. 5 and 6. We agree that
inasmuch as Tsuruta was not notified about the filing of the
disclaimer until May 4, 1998, Tsuruta could not have filed
preliminary Motions Nos. 5 and 6 prior to the due date (March
5, 1998) of the preliminary motions. Therefore, Tsuruta has
established good cause why preliminary Motions Nos. 5 and 6
were not filed by March 5, 1998.
In view of the foregoing, Tsuruta’s motion No. 4 is
granted.
Tsuruta’s Preliminary Motion No. 5
-18-
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007